Cricket's 3 best batsmen

[Mr Pieman]

My 3 are:

Tendulkar
Hayden
Lara

[Donny]

OK, JLC, let's look at both batsmen in their peak year.

Tendulkar's best year was only last year. He played 16 Tests and 26 innings and got 80 runs less than Ponting's best year from 9 more innings. That's no small difference.

I'll just run that by you again. 9 more innings, mate, not 1 or 2.

In Tendulkar's BEST year, he averaged 55.68. That's over 42 less than Ponting's best year average. 42 !!

Batsman - Team - Year - Tests - Inns - N.O. - Runs - Ave. - Centuries

RT Ponting - (Aus) - 2003 - 11 - 17 - 2 - 1472 - 257 - 98.13 - 6

SR Tendulkar (Ind) - 2002 - 16 - 26 - 1 - 1392 - 193 - 55.68 - 4

Over their whole Test careers, Ponting averages 56.05. Tendulkar averages 55.40.

So, you obviously don't base your assessment on facts and figures, JLC. What do you base it on ? I ask the same question of any of you who keep sprouting this 'Tendulkar is the best' stuff.

The Indian brains trust certainly don't think he's their best. They bat Dravid at first drop. That's where your best batsman bats. And yes, I think Lara should bat at 3 as well.

[JLC]

Well you would have to assess the quality of the opposition in those years one would think and where the test matches were played. I think thats why the ranking system was introduced in the first place ie because Haydens 380 against Bangladesh on a batter friendly pitch could be the equivalent of a Lara double century on a bowler friendly pitch against better quality bowling attack.

Ponting had a great year this year and so has Hayden however i still think Tendulkar is the better batsman over their careers. If they were to stop playing today the way i understand it you are saying Ponting would be regarded as the better batsman ?? Thats where i disagree with you.

Any batsman who has played over 60 away test matches and can still average over 50 must be a pretty good batsman.

As for the theory about your best batsman batting at first drop i agree with you in part but its not always the case. I dont think Boon was Australias best batsman when he was batting first drop.

jlc

[Donny]

JLC, you said, "You are comparing one player in Ponting at the peak of his form to Tendulkar who is in the worst slump of his career" so I compared their peak years and, although the figures told an obvious story, you brush it aside with nonsense about the relative oppositions.

There was a yawning gap in their stats, not a small one.

And just in case you (like some others) are getting carried away with Tendulkar's so called likeness to Bradman, that was only ever said with regards to his style of strokemaking not his ability to accumulate runs in big innings and win Test matches for his team.

But those are things being said of Ponting.


From an article by Jon Pierik

December 29, 2003

RICKY Ponting confirmed his greatness and joined Don Bradman as the only men to score three double-centuries in a calendar year as Australia sandpapered India to the point of oblivion yesterday.

Resuming on 120, Ponting's outstanding year continued when he went on to amass a career-high 257 in more than 10 hours at the crease as the hosts replied with a patient 558 - a first innings lead of 192.


Only Bradman, during the 1930 Ashes series, had previously achieved the feat.


And it's doubtful whether he ever batted any better than the 29-year-old did in the past two days.

Marathon-man Ponting also became just the fifth batsman to notch successive double-centuries in 126 years of Test cricket and now has the fourth-highest Test score ever at the MCG.

Along the way, he usurped Matthew Hayden's record of 1391 runs to become Australia's leading run-scorer in a calendar year - with the possibility of another knock to come.

The Tasmanian has 1472 runs at 98.1 this year, the most by any batsman in the world.

The most impressive trait of Ponting's break-out year has been his stern-faced determination to graft when the runs have slowed.

In previous years, he would have tried to force the issue with a bold stroke - and perhaps lost his wicket.

Now he remains as calm as a professional sniper, shooting down the opposition with a series of deadly bullets.


.

[commonwombat]

Have stayed out of this one for a while but have to take issue with one of yr points Donny; that being your assertion that a sides best batsman bats at no.3.

Sorry but can't agree with that as a hard fast rule. Frequently that can be the case but that can depend on the strength and structure of the particular team. A no.3 has to be a versatile player with the technique to play opener if there is an early wicket and also has to be able to drop anchor or raise the tempo as required.

Can think of a number of exceptions to yr dictum. Australia's finest batsman of the 70's - early 80's was Greg Chappell who's best postion was no.4. Allan Border and Steve Waugh have records that will stand for themselves and have been regarded by judges as their side's finest batsmen but both were arrant failures at 3.

No.3 must be a fine and versatile player and frequently the best man will bat there but by no means is this cast in stone certainty. Many times depending on the side the lynchpin may be elsewhere in the order be it 4,5 or opener.

No disrespect intended but yr statement is open to rebuttal.

[Donny]

Yes, no worries wombat. Certainly not cast in stone but the exceptions you noted didn't need to take first drop.

Greg Chappell batted at 4 because of the incumbent #3, his brother Ian.

Border and Waugh would probably both have batted at first drop but for Deano and then Boony.

The really great batsmen batted at #3 or opened. Bradman, Hobbs, Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Harvey, Barry Richards to name a few.

Tendulkar and Lara batted at first drop in their prime but as they lost that early form and confidence both sought the slightly more protected #4 spot.

Dravid bats at #3 for India because he's their best batsman and Lara still should. If you drop your best batsman down the order to protect him, he's not your best batsman.

It's a slightly different matter if you have very brittle openers. Then you might bat a 'third opener' at #3 and bat who you consider your best at #4.

Wombat, there's no need for your 'no disrespects' or 'sorry buts' to me or other posters. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I'd much rather read your posts (or JLC's) than those just saying, "I agree" or "That's bullshit!"

[London Dave]

I agree

[Donny]

Couldn't resist, could you Dave ? I'm glad you didn't.

[London Dave]

That's Bullshit Donny, and you know it

[commonwombat]

Was going to add " I concur" but resisted.

Re Greg Chappell, he DID bat for much of his captaincy at 3 and successfully, but 4 was his best position. Both Border and S Waugh were tried at 3 and failed.

[Donny]

"Both Border and S Waugh were tried at 3 and failed"

Border failed at #3 ? What figures do derive that from, wombat ? He came into the team when WSC took most of the stars and quickly found himself at first drop.

His first 6 innings there produced scores of 20,105,85,66,162 & 50. Overall he had 33 innings at #3 and averaged 41.67.

Wasn't Chappelli considered to be an excellent #3 ? He averaged 42.42

AB often found himself in early and did the hard work when Australia was trying to rebuild.

He went down the order when Ian and Greg Chappell returned to the team and remained there for the rest of his career as Greg Chappell, Graham Yallop and Kim Hughes (and later Deano and Boony) took turns at #3.

Interestingly, Steve Waugh was demoted from #3 two innings after hitting a century there. He was considered to be too flashy. When he got his game together, and was on top of the world rankings, the selectors were reluctant to move him from #5 because of his success there.

The strong opening pairs around that time - Taylor/Marsh, Taylor/Slater - enabled the selectors to experiment at #3 after Jones and Boon with the youthful Langer and Ponting before Lang replaced Slats at the top and Ponting returned to first drop.

During this time, Mark Waugh was established at #4 so big brother just stayed at #5 in a strong batting lineup.

[commonwombat]

Border played no.3 in the early series or 2 post WSC. In those years he tended to be either in a rich vien of runs or right off with little or no in between. In either that series or the following season (80-81) he was very nearly out of the side as was the case 82-83 v England, where Thommo and some schizo captaincy from Bob Willis saved his hide in Melb.

Re Waugh at 3. He did play there for a time for NSW ands was given a run in one series v WI, I beleive 88-89 v WI. At that stage he had NOT scored a test ton (first one at Headingley 89 after 4 yrs in intl cricket mind you) so yr assertion is incorrect on that account.

[commonwombat]

Really don't want to buy into the I'm right you're wrong as regards the relative merits of the various batsmen. They all have legitimate claims and yes Donny I do acknowledge Ponting's case for being rated in the "holy trinity" on his current form.

What we all need to acknowledge that they all have their golden period be it a year or couple of years when they are nigh untouchable. Lara had his 92-95, Hayden has been 2001-current and Ponting this year. They have all set records and all credit to them. We must all acknowledge that these periods don't run forever and they will all have off times.

Cases in point: Lara has never consistently recaptured the form of his golden years; Hayden has settled on his third stint in intl cricket and we should all remember those times when his footwork and co-ordination at the crease resembled that of a kangaroo doing a barn dance rather than an opener; Ponting has had his failures on the sub continent and period where his stumbling across his tumps and front foot lurch have brought him undone.

Any realistic analysis needs to be done long term and probably post career.

[Donny]

I'm not contending I'm infallible, mate, but if you're going to claim I'm incorrect about something, please check the facts. Read on.

In Steve Waugh's first 15 Test innings he batted at #4 twice, #5 once, #6 once, #7 seven times and #8 four times. He then had 1 innings at #3 against England in the 2nd. Test in Perth during the '86/87 season. He scored 71 and didn't bat in the second innings.

51 innings (at 5,6 and 7, mostly 6) later he was tried at first drop against the Windies in the '92/93 series. Not 4 years earlier, as you thought.

He scored 10 & 20 in the first Test at Brisbane. In the second (Melb) he scored 38 & 1 but batted at #4 in the second innings.

He scored a century in the 3rd. on his home ground, the SCG, and didn't bat in the second innings.

He batted at #5 in both innings of the 4th. Test in Adelaide for 42 & 4.

The 5th. Test was in perth. Waugh batted at first drop and scored 13 & 0. That was the last time he batted at #3 in a Test.

For the rest of his Test career, he batted at #5 & #6 with 3 innings at #4 and 2 at #7.

So, as I wrote, "Interestingly, Steve Waugh was demoted from #3 two innings after hitting a century there."

It was his 4th. Test century, wombat.

[commonwombat]

Certainly, I will admit my complete fallability. I did remember him being given a run at 3 in the earlier part of his career and did remeber seeing him play there against the Windies and not being all that convincing, which apart from the SCG knock looks to have been the case.

Will certainly bow to yr stats knowledge bur will stand by my opinion that he is essentially a middle order player rather than a top order man like his bro. This is not levelled as a criticism of him but others are welcome to their own opinions.